1. Openings (15 minutes each)

Mark Farmer (MF) opening (3:25–13:40mins)

Dr Farmer said he does not ‘believe’ in evolution. He defined ‘belief’
as ‘something that no amount of argument can dissuade you from accepting in
your heart that it is true’. He seemed to be in this way contrasting religious
belief with science. He said, ‘It is because I am a scientist that I do not
“believe” in evolution.’

Comment: This is a false contrast, because Christian faith (belief)
is not just ‘in your heart’ but is based on evidence. If the
evidence were overturned, then Christian faith would be overturned. The apostle
Paul makes this point regarding the Resurrection in 1 Cor. 15: if the resurrection of Jesus did not happen then
our faith is worthless. Dr Farmer seemed to be advocating fideism, the
view that faith is without rational content or support, which is not biblical
Christianity. On this topic, see
Why use apologetics for evangelism?

MF also tried to argue that evolution is in no way religious, or was religiously
neutral, and charged that creationists claiming that evolution was an anti-God religion
were doing ‘a disservice to those meant to inform’.

MF cited Wikipedia’s definition of science, including that it is the search
for natural explanations. Comment: This is a self-serving
(for materialists) definition that excludes supernatural explanations even if they
are demanded by the evidence. See
The rules of the game.

MF made much of the point that ‘challenging theories on the basis of lack
of evidence is a hollow argument’, that currently unexplained phenomena are
not evidence against evolutionary theory. He noted failure to understand the origin
of life as an example and referred to Dr Wieland as using such an argument in relation
to this, claiming that Dr Wieland said that this proves Genesis is true (see Dr
Wieland’s response later).

Creationists do not believe in a ‘God of the gaps’ argument—that if
we don’t understand something we revert to ‘God’ to explain it.
That approach is akin to superstition, not Christian faith.

The ‘God of the gaps’ view is a straw man. As creationists we never
seek miraculous intervention in the gaps in normal ‘operation
science’. Rather, we use the basic scientific principles of causality
(everything that has a beginning has a sufficient cause) and analogy
(e.g. we observe that intelligence is needed to generate complex coded information
in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past). And because
there was no material intelligent designer for life, it is legitimate to invoke
a non-material designer for life. Note that this is not based on a lack of knowledge,
but squarely on what we do know about
complex specified information and the laws of chemistry that refute chemical
evolutionary ideas of the
origin of life.

Dr Farmer compared current ignorance over the origin of life with the debate in
Copernicus’ day over the inability to comprehend elliptical orbits, which
was settled much later when Newton discovered calculus. He implied that one day
we would understand how life arose by natural processes. Comment:
This is a false analogy, because Copernicus was dealing with operational science,
whereas the origin of life is a part of origins or historical science. The latter
operates by the process of plausible story telling which is not open to experimentation
in the same way as are the effects of gravity on elliptical orbits. See
It’s not science! There is nothing that is likely to be discovered
about how life operates that will explain its origin, any more
than studying how an electric motor works will tell you how it came into existence
(although it would of course suggest that intelligence was involved!). Indeed, the
more we know about how life works, the more ridiculous the notion of its naturalistic
origin seems. Note that in arguing for the naturalistic origin of life, Dr Farmer
did not even seem to allow that God created life—everything must be explained
without reference to God. This reminds one of
Lewontin’s amazing admission, but Lewontin is an atheist, so from
his worldview everything has to be explained by mere material processes.
The Bible says that the reality of God’s existence can be clearly seen in
what has been made, so that no one has any excuse (Romans 1:18–23). It seems strange that Dr Farmer,
a member of the Episcopal Church, seems to be willing to work hard to eliminate
all evidence of God’s creative actions, attributing all ‘creation’
to purely natural processes. This seems to deny the clear testimony of the Bible
that the creation speaks clearly of the supernatural.

MF cited Dobzhansky, famous evolutionist of the 19th century (cited
here), as saying how meaningful biology was in the light of evolution but
that without it the facts provide no meaningful picture as a whole, adding that
he himself found biology immensely satisfying because of evolution. Comment:
That something is satisfying does not establish that it is true.

MF challenged that a wrong order of fossils would overturn evolution (human fossils
found with dinosaurs, etc.).

At the end, Dr Farmer said that gene sequences, gene order and gene anomalies all
show that humans are more closely related to the great apes than to other living
creatures (without explaining how). Comment: Aside from this ‘elephant
hurling’, a common debating tactic recognized as an informal fallacy, where
a list of ‘proofs’ are given without explanation with the apparent intention
of overwhelming the opponent, these arguments assume what they set out to prove,
which Dr Wieland explains later. Dr Farmer went on to challenge that if creationists
are serious about chimps not being our closest relatives, then they should demand
the halting of all studies that use them for medical research.

Carl Wieland (CW) opening (13:40–28:21mins)

Dr Wieland explained the concept in formal logic of the law of the excluded middle:
that either things were created or they were not (evolution); there are no other
options, so evidence for or against one is by force of logic evidence respectively
against or for the only other possibility. As we explain
here:

Evolutionists from Darwin to today have used the same tactic, i.e., ‘God wouldn’t
have done it that way, therefore evolution must explain it.’

It’s notable that Darwin often used pseudo-theological arguments against
design rather than direct arguments for evolution. But this form of argument
presupposes the ‘two-model approach,’ i.e., that creation and evolution
are the only alternatives, so evidence against creation is evidence for evolution.
Ironically, many evolutionists scream loudly if creationists use this same form
of logic to conclude that evidence against evolution is support for creation!

CW pointed out the difference between operational and historical science and how
they contrast in the roles of evidence and story telling and how interpretation
of evidence is so important in historical science. One’s worldview very much
determines how one interprets historical data, but it has much less role in understanding
the physics of gravity. For more, see
Chapter 1 of Refuting Evolution 2.

CW: the importance of definitions. Biblical creation: that God created
everything supernaturally in six days, thousands of years ago and there was a global,
year-long flood that created most of the fossils. Evolution: the development
from nothing to particles to people, all by themselves, by purely natural processes,
with no outside input required: from nothing to nature; particles to people, all
by themselves. Evolutionists often equivocate (switch to a different meaning of
‘evolution’) which confuses people. See
this trick explained.

The biological changes we observe (real operational science) are heading in the
wrong direction to change microbes into magnolias and microbiologists.

CW: the biological changes we observe (real operational science) are heading in
the wrong direction to change microbes into magnolias and microbiologists. They
are tearing things down, not building them up. It is not that there has not been
enough time; it’s that the processes are incapable of doing what is claimed.
For more on this, see The
evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong
direction).

CW: protozoan-to-pony evolution requires the addition of lots of new information,
or specified complexity. Textbook examples of ‘evolution’ show mutations,
natural selection and adaptation but loss of information. Mutations, the
only possible source of new information, are on rare occasions beneficial, but even
then they still overwhelmingly cause loss of information. See the
wingless beetles example. And natural selection causes loss of information—see
Muddy waters.

For more on how a creationist, Edward Blyth, developed the idea of natural selection,
well before Darwin, see
Darwin’s illegitimate brainchild. Research on the degradation of the
human genome has been summarized in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome,
by geneticist Dr John Sanford (Ivan Press, NY), 2005.

CW summary: we see information transmitted and lost by natural processes today but
not created, which is evidence for its origin by creation and not evolution.

2. Cross-examination

CW first planned question to Dr Farmer (2 minutes 28:21–30:12mins)

Modern science is built on Christian presuppositions. Is recognition of the supernatural
unscientific? Do you support the exclusion of God from science?

MF answer (5 minutes 30:12–34:07mins)

Rejected the use of supernatural phenomena to explain natural phenomena. He quoted
Kenneth Miller on the idea of science and religion being complementary, non-intersecting
areas of thought. Comment: For a semi-technical critique of Miller’s
book where he promotes this destructive idea, see Mutilating Miller. See also how this compartmentalized thinking
undermines Christian faith and witness in
Time Magazine Christians.

MF cited Galileo about how God gave us brains to use, implying that to deny evolution
is to deny one’s God-given ability to think. Comment: It
is not about one’s ability to think, but one’s starting presuppositions
that determine how the evidence is interpreted when you think about it.
If a scientist assumes that only material forces have ever been at play in the creation
of the universe, then supernatural causes are automatically excluded. Indeed, the
biblical creationist view that includes the supernatural is a less constrained view
of reality: causes can be natural or supernatural, as the evidence demands.
See Evolution & creation,
science & religion, facts & bias.

MF said that creationists claimed that radioactive decay rates were accelerated
in the past, citing the RATE research program. He claimed that the residual helium
in the zircons (part of the evidence for accelerated decay) was due to leaking into
the zircons from the surrounding rock. MF also mentioned that creationists
had promoted speed of light decay to try to explain radioisotope dating that gives
long ages. Comment: The relevance of these to the question asked
seemed rather dubious, but CW answered them later in his rebuttal and clarification.
Dr Farmer claimed that if these ideas were true, then ‘the operation of a
cell phone would be impossible’. He did not explain why this would be so,
and it seems like a baseless conjecture. Why would, for example, a period of accelerated
radioactive decay in the past affect the operation of a cell phone now, or then
for that matter? And even decay in the speed of light, as proposed by Barry Setterfield,
would not affect the operation of cell phones, because special relativity and radiation
frequencies, etc., would be unaffected at a given point in time. Dr Farmer’s
assertion is baseless. He also said he knows many evangelical Christians who are
scientists and have no problem with evolution, that while evolution might enable
some like Richard Dawkins to be ‘intellectually fulfilled atheists’,
atheism was not a necessary conclusion or implication of evolutionary theory. He
cited Philip Johnson, pioneer of the ID movement, as saying that ‘One can
imagine a creator who works through natural selection’.

MF first planned question to Dr Wieland
(2 minutes 34:07–35:02mins)

‘What is the best explanation for pathogenic bacteria that have multiple antibiotic
resistance?’

CW answer (5 minutes 35:02–39:05mins)

Antibiotic resistance is mostly acquired by the transfer of plasmids of already-resistant
bacteria—that is, it does not involve the ‘creation’ of new genetic
information by some natural process. Antibiotic resistance that is due to mutations,
in every case studied, does not involve ‘uphill’ increased information,
but ‘downhill’ loss of information. E.g.. penicillinase. See
Superbugs not super after all. The types of changes seen in the development
of antibiotic resistance in pathogenic bacteria do not demonstrate ‘goo-to-you’
evolution. CW mentioned
Dr Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist, as supporting
the creationist view of antibiotic resistance, that it does not represent an increase
of biological information, but in reality degeneration. Dr Macreadie is featured
in The Genesis Files. For more on the origin of pathogens, see
How does biblical Christianity explain the origin of pathogenic viruses and poisons?

Second planned question, CW to MF (2 minutes 39:05–40:50mins)

Challenged MF to give an evolutionary explanation for the vastly superior mental
capacities of some humans, such as incredible feats of memory or calculation and
the ‘built-in’ compensating mechanisms for disabilities, neither of
which can be seen as necessary for survival and therefore accessible to natural
selection.

MF answer (5 minutes 40:50–45:47mins)

Photo by Richard Mc Donald, released under the
GFDL
Torresian crows have shown tool-making capacities that put chimps in the shade.

Dr Farmer said the human brain/mind was still largely a great mystery for science,
although some progress had been made with MRI studies, etc. (Comment:
It is interesting that the use of MRI for medical use and research was pioneered
by creationist scientist
Dr Raymond Damadian). MF speculated about chance combinations of genes,
or environmental effects on development, or epigenetic effects. He said that fossil
evidence showed an increase in brain size of humans (Comment: which
is irrelevant to the question), and that chimps are ‘generally recognized
as having greater cognitive abilities than their small-brained cousins’. However,
parrots (birds), which have very small brains compared to chimps, can greatly exceed
them in cognitive abilities. See
Petulant parrot proves a point—but atheists can’t (or won’t) see
it. One parrot has a
950 word vocabulary. Also, a Torresian crow has shown tool-making abilities
that put chimps in the shade.

Second planned question, MF to CW (2 minutes 45:47–46:40mins)

‘If evolutionary theory has no predictive value, then why is it that unbiased
analysis of complete genomes from various organisms has shown that human beings
are very distantly related to mustard plants, distant relatives of nematode worms,
closely related to mice and almost identical to chimpanzees?’

CW answer (5 minutes 46:40–50:56mins)

Carl pointed out that he never said that evolutionary theory had no predictive power
whatsoever, but that the question assumes what it is meant to prove: that similarity
is evidence of common ancestry (relatedness). Genetic comparison show similarity,
not necessarily relatedness. If we were not similar biochemically, what would we
eat? And if organisms that were more alike in their biology were not also more alike
in their genetics, it would call into question the role of DNA in the biology of
organisms. The pattern of similarity has a possible theological purpose: to show
that there is one creator of all things (the singular pattern of similarity shows
this). Walter ReMine has dubbed this ‘The
Biotic Message’. Similarities, or 'homologous structures', also show
the mastery of the Creator
over His Creation. There are also patterns of similarity that defy an evolutionary
explanation, indeed confute such stories. For more on the different developmental
processes behind the 5-digit patterns in humans and frogs, see
Argument: Common design points to common ancestry. See also
Are look-alikes related? CW also pointed out that the common claim that
humans and chimps are ‘nearly identical’ (as per MF) is a gross exaggeration.
See Chimp/Human DNA—count
the differences! The differences are far too great to be explained by any
remotely plausible evolutionary scenario of mutations and natural selection.
Haldane’s Dilemma alone undoes the idea of human evolution.

In his question, MF referred to Ernst Haeckel, an early disciple of Darwin who ‘clearly
predicted that humans were closer to worms than plants’. Comment:
It is surprising that Dr Farmer mentioned Haeckel at all, considering that Haeckel
was guilty of massive fraud
in trying to prove evolutionary relationships using embryo similarities.

Rebuttal and clarification (9 minutes each)

CW (50:56–1:00:42 hrs)

Cr Wieland addressed the claim by Dr Farmer that God could have used evolution and
that evolution does not exclude the existence of God. Carl agreed, pointing out
that this is the reason he spoke of biblical creation. While it is possible
to imagine some sort of ‘god’ that is compatible with evolutionary theory,
it is not the Creator revealed in the Bible. Nor is the tangible, real history of
the Bible consistent with evolutionary theory’s history. See
Creation: Why It Matters.

Wikipedia.org Released under the
GFDL
Coelacanth fish fossils are found in rocks that contain dinosaur fossils, but not
those that contain whale or human fossils. But coelacanths are still living on earth
today, with humans and whales.

In answer to Dr Farmer’s challenge about human and dinosaur fossils not being
found in the same rocks, Dr Wieland pointed out that coelacanth fossils are found
with dinosaur fossils but not whales. Yet, since coelacanths were discovered still
living, it means that they lived when whale fossils formed without any coelacanth
fossils forming at all (that are known of). In other words, that human fossils are
not found with dinosaur fossils does not prove that humans and dinosaurs did not
live together, any more than the lack of coelacanth and whale fossils found together
proves they did not live at the same time. Lots of
other living fossils confound evolutionary notions of time and change. Would
even finding a living dinosaur
today overturn evolution? No, CW pointed out that the theory would be adjusted to
accommodate it; it would not be overturned.

creation of life in a test-tube would not disprove creation

CW pointed out that creation of life in a test-tube would not disprove creation.
On the contrary, it would demonstrate the involvement of intelligence, if it ever
happened. See Creating life
in a test tube?

Use of animals in medical research? MF suggested that if evolution were not true
then creationists should campaign against the use of animals, particularly chimps,
in medical research. CW pointed out that the patterns again are not consistent with
evolution. For example, pigs are more useful for heart valves than are monkeys.
See Dealing with the heart
of the problem.

Dr Farmer dismissed the very possibility of light speed slowing down. However, big
bang advocates (certainly not biblical creationists) have proposed such an idea
to try to solve the horizon
problem of big bang cosmology.

MF (1:00:42–1:10:31 hrs)

Photo NASA
The amount of helium retained in zircons (from alpha-decay steps) matches that expected
from billions of years of radioactive decay, but it should have diffused out if
the zircons were that old. The data suggest a period of accelerated decay and a
total age of thousands of years.

Dr Farmer claimed that the RATE researchers did not take into account helium leaching
into the zircon crystals and that this accounted for the excess helium in the zircons
and so the findings did not overturn the long ages given by such methods of dating.
Comment: The zircon crystals in question are embedded in biotite
and the diffusion rate for helium in biotite is much greater than that in zircons,
so the zircon diffusion is the rate limiting issue. This alone overturns Dr Farmer’s
contention. But, zircons at different depths, which are at different temperatures,
also show that his point is errant, because the amount of helium in the zircons
is inversely proportional to the temperature. Since diffusion rates are proportional
to the temperature, if the helium in the zircons was due to diffusion in from
the surrounding rock matrix, there should be more helium in the zircons
at depth, not less, at higher temperatures. Furthermore, the amount of
radiogenic helium can be estimated from measuring the amount of radiogenic lead
in the zircons and they are consistent, with the amount in the surrounding biotite
accounting for the small amount missing from the zircons, which would hardly be
the case if helium diffused into the zircons. But, the greatest problem
for Dr Farmer’s retort is that the concentration of helium in the zircons
is greater than that in the surrounding biotite, and diffusion will never
happen from low concentration to high concentration! For a refutation of this and
other arguments against the RATE research findings, by Dr Russell D. Humphreys,
RATE researcher, see
Round 1,
Round 2.

MF expressed incredulity that the Creator endowed bacteria with the ability to resist
modern antibiotics. Comment: Dr Wieland had not claimed or implied
that. MF also claimed that increased complexity would be needed to gain antibiotic
resistance. Comment: CW had already shown that degenerative changes
can result in antibiotic resistance and that no information-gaining processes were
necessary.

MF: ‘Would not transfer of biological information from one bacterium to another
be an increase of information (for the receiving bacterium)?’ Comment:
The question is where the information came from in the beginning; just
copying it to another organism does not invent new functional information. Copying
a book on a photocopier does not add new information to it. See
Copying confusion, which deals with a slightly more sophisticated version
of this argument.

Dr Farmer contrasted science and religion, saying that science is constantly changing,
but ‘religion’ does not. Comment: This is a rather
philosophically naïve view of evolution vs creation (the debate topic), which
both deal with origins science, which is a matter of history. See
Bias and faith.

MF postulated three mechanisms whereby genetic complexity can increase to facilitate
speciation (which he said Darwin knew happened but did
not know how):

A ‘very well established mechanism is symbiosis.’ Comment:
MF probably meant to say endosymbiosis—by this he meant the coming together
of two different organisms to make one new one, a melding of the two. He claimed
that ‘evidence for this is overwhelming’ and human mitochondria arose
by this process. Comment: Even if the claimed examples of this
were legitimate, it does not explain the origin of the information because
the adding of two genomes together does not explain the origin of those genomes!
No new information is created by adding books together into an anthology, for example.

Epigenesis: ‘differential gene expression in different tissues’. MF
said that time did not allow him to explain this. Comment: And
it is not at all clear how differently expressing existing genes can add new genes
to a genome.

Dr Farmer claimed that Dr Wieland’s statement that there was no known mechanism
for increasing genetic information omits much evidence from the literature.
Comment: None of Dr Farmer’s three examples above actually create
new information, so he has presented nothing that proved his claim that
CW had omitted anything from the literature.

Photo NASA
The Alpha-Monocerotid meteor outburst in 1995. Dr Farmer suggested that the forces
of colliding meteors could force amino acids to form proteins (polymers of amino
acids), but such random processes cannot put the amino acids in the correct order
for the protein to have specificity (that is, able to do a specific job). That is,
such natural processes do not explain the information resident in proteins—this
can only come from intelligence.

MF said that ‘strictly speaking the origin of life has never been a part of
evolutionary theory’ and that it remains the ‘great unknown’.
He admitted that the Miller-Urey experiment used the wrong gases, but ‘none
the less, information did increase in these experiments’. Comment:
The formation of more complex chemical structures is not necessarily an increase
of information, because complexity does not, of itself, equate with information.
A pile of sand is complex, but it contains no information. A block of ice has more
structure than liquid water, but it contains no more information
than the water that made it—all the information needed to make ice was already
present in the water molecules; nothing has been added simply by removing heat energy.
See Fridges and Hot Air
and What about
crystals? Likewise, the chemicals formed in the Miller-Urey experiment contained
no more information than the system that formed them.

MF finished by saying that subjecting amino acids to impacts, mimicking perhaps
the effects of meteors colliding, produced polypeptides, ‘the precursors of
proteins’, thus showing that increases in complexity do occur in nature without
the need to invoke a supernatural explanation. Comment: See
Origin of Life: The Polymerization Problem and
Did life’s building blocks come from outer space? But a random
polymer of even the correct, biologically active, left-handed amino acids (which
inorganic chemistry cannot make) does not contain any information because
it would not specify anything. For a technical analysis of the problem of natural
processes making the ubiquitin protein, for example, see
The ubiquitin protein: chance or design?

Impromptu questions (2 minutes for the question; 5 minutes response)

MF question to CW (1:10:31–1:11:22 hrs):

Photo
wikipedia.org
Certain mosquitoes carry the Plasmodium malaria parasite. That Plasmodium
contains a chloroplast-like structure (as Dr Farmer pointed out) might tell us something
about the origin of the malaria parasite after the Fall (Genesis 3). However, even
if Plasmodium acquired its ‘chloroplast’ from another organism,
or was derived from a plant-like organism, this does not explain the origin
of the genetic code for those features. Like many pathogens, Plasmodium
is probably a degenerate form of a non-parasitic organism.

Plasmodium causes malaria. There is a remnant chloroplast in Plasmodium,
which is essential for its survival. The presence of such a thing did not surprise
evolutionists who thought that Plasmodium had descended from a dinoflagellate
(marine plankton). How would Carl account for this from a biblical creationist point
of view?

CW answer (1:11:22–1:14:21 hrs):

Malaria-causing Plasmodium was not a part of God’s originally good
creation. These findings could well form part of the biblical creationist’s
explanation for the origin of such a disease. The biblical creation model does not
exclude speciation or derivation from a common ancestor, but such processes do not
involve the origin of complex new genetic information, but rather loss of information,
in the creation model. Comment: Downhill changes, which result
in a net loss of information by natural processes, are to be expected and are more
and more being implicated in the pathogenicity of many micro-organisms. See for
example:
Genome decay in the Mycoplasmas (Semi-technical—ICR Impact 340, Pathogenicity may be an indirect consequence of loss of genetic
information, e.g. for amino acid synthesis). Parasitic Plasmodium could
well have originated in a manner similar to that claimed by MF. More research would
be needed to ascertain if there is anything novel in Plasmodium that did
not come from elsewhere. The Plasmodium genome has 23 million bases with
5,300 genes but to date no dinoflagellate has been fully sequenced. Although there
are a vast number of dinoflagellates, one being sequenced seems to have many more
genes than Plasmodium, suggesting that the latter is degenerate by
comparison. 1 This would be quite
compatible with the biblical creation model. Many evolutionists ignorantly think
that creationists deny that mutations and natural selection operate, or deny that
‘speciation’ occurs. But this is not the case. See
Variation and natural selection versus evolution.

CW question to MF (1:14:21–1:16:15 hrs):

A wide range of organisms show a consistent pattern in the amino acid sequences
of being similarly distant from one another. Such patterns do not fit an evolutionary
explanation and the ‘molecular clock’ attempt to explain this pattern
is self-refuting. The pattern fits much better the separate creation of distinct
kinds of organisms. See
the argument in print.

MF answer (1:16:15–1:20:35 hrs):

MF tentatively suggested that such comparisons came about by over-reliance on one
protein and that looking at a wide range of proteins might not give the same pattern.
Comment: CW had mentioned that it was not just cytochrome c, but
it was a widespread pattern. MF admitted that the molecular clock was a flawed model
(‘sometimes’). Comment: See
Debunking the ‘molecular clock’. MF pleaded ‘ignorance
in a good sense’ and said there was much left to be found out. Comment:
Which goes to show that evolution, as a theory of history, is not easily
overturned by the evidence, since it is driven by philosophy. As Karl Popper, the
famous philosopher of science said, ‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific
theory, but a metaphysical research program’; cited
here.

Closing statements (5 minutes each)

Dr Farmer (1:20:35–1:25:32 hrs)

As ‘a scientist of faith’ he said that he feels ‘that science
holds the key for achieving a life-long goal of understanding.’ Comment:
As Bible-believing Christians we would have said that God’s Word,
His infallible revelation to us, is the only thing that deserves to be called ‘the
key’ to understanding. Dr Farmer had already indicated that he viewed ‘faith’
as something separate from ‘science’. But see:
Is the Bible only relevant to faith and salvation?

MF: ‘I know of no scientist who claims …that science can explain all
things.’ And he does ‘not subscribe to a dogmatic worldview’.
Comment: Many of Dr Farmer’s evolutionary colleagues take
a very different view; see
Do Evolutionists really claim their theory isn’t perfect? And
A Who’s Who of evolutionists. But even Dr Farmer reveals a certain
dogmatism in his vigorous defence of evolutionary theory. He is certainly dogmatic
about keeping supernatural explanations out of origins science. But a Christian
has a basis for being dogmatic about the basic elements of a Christian worldview,
because they come from God Himself, who knows everything. John 14:6 (Jesus: ‘no one comes to the Father but
by me’) is either true or false. If it is true, as any Christian should attest,
then it is something we need to be dogmatic about. ‘Hanging loose’ about
such things destroys Christian faith.

Dr Farmer’s statements might suggest that he thinks that creationists claim
to know everything, are dogmatic, etc., but see
‘Hanging Loose’: What should we defend? This article shows that
within what God has revealed to us (which is the only justifiable dogma) there is
much room for debate, science, etc., and plenty of room for humility.

MF asserted that the concept of ‘the image of God’ in man has nothing
to do with our biology or biological origins, that our biological origins ‘says
nothing about our spiritual origins’. Comment: This sounds
like the ancient Gnosticism that divorced the spiritual and the physical. But God
created both the physical and the spiritual realms and mankind is both spiritual
and physical (God took dust and made a man: Genesis 2:7). Furthermore, God declared the physical creation
to be ‘very good’, when he finished creating it.

evolution has to provide for a gain of information in the biosphere to account for
the diversity of life on earth, not just copy the existing information from one
organism to another.

MF asserted that man was the product of billions of years of evolutionary processes
and that ‘astronomical, geological and biological data confirm this.’
Comment: No astronomical or geological data were presented in this
debate to establish this bold claim.

But he asserted that man is special / unique (but only spiritually).

Asserted that evolution is a fact, but it is about how, not why. Comment:
I once thought this, but it is a false distinction known as the fact-value fallacy,
which is quite destructive of biblically consistent Christian faith and witness.
See Harvesting real fruit.

Dr Wieland (1:25:32–1:31:14 hrs)

CW clarified that evolution had to provide for a gain of information in the biosphere
to account for the diversity of life on earth, not just copy the existing information
from one organism to another (MF’s gene duplication, endosymbiosis, etc.).
Furthermore, mutations in the remainder of the genome (the vastly larger part),
cost an organism so much that the rare mutations in a duplicated gene are not going
to go anywhere (because of the bad mutations in the rest of the genome). We observe
degradation of information, we don’t see the creation of new information
happening. And the problem of deleterious mutations means that the net effect is
relentlessly downhill, even if there were a localized temporary, chance
increase somewhere. See
Variation, information and the created kind for the Ayala quote and more
on the sort of variation we see that does not support evolutionary notions, but
a biblical model of biology. Dr John Sanford, former Cornell University geneticist
and inventor of the gene gun technology, has shown how the human genome is decaying
because of this in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, Elim
Publishing, NY, USA, 2005).

CW related several scientific predictions of biblical creation that have been verified
by scientific observation:

Prediction: all people are closely related. Molecular biology confirms this. It
is not a prediction of evolution. The ‘out of Africa’ theory
of human evolution is an attempt to accommodate this evidence. See:
No bones about Eve. For more on the racist views of evolutionists of the
past see: Racism Q&A.

CW related several scientific predictions of biblical creation that have been verified
by scientific observation.

Dr Wieland finished by repeating that evolution is not a testable scientific theory,
citing Dr Whitten, Professor of Genetics at the University of Melbourne, who was
giving the Assembly Week address in 1980:

‘Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed
to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble
across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will
invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing
research grants.’

Final comment: It was a good debate, conducted in a very civil
manner with both Dr Farmer and Dr Wieland being pleasant and polite throughout.
The interchange covered quite a bit of ground (as the above annotations attest)
and undoubtedly left the audience with some solid ‘meat’ to chew over.
Hopefully the annotations here will aid in that process.

Helpful Resources

We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control.

Affiliated Sites

Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.

CMI has offices in Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America.